Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30563622›Full record

ArticleAtencion primaria2018

[Ethical aspects of overdiagnosis: Between the utilitarianism and the ethics of responsibility].

Abel Jaime Novoa Jurado

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Atencion primaria, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Abel Jaime Novoa JuradoGrupo de Trabajo de Bioética de la semFYC, Plataforma NoGracias; Servicio de Urgencias Hospitalarias, Hospital General Universitario José María Morales Meseguer, Murcia, España. Electronic address: abelnovoajurado@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Overdiagnosis is an emerging and unexpected phenomenon in medicine with multiple causes: social, cognitive and technical. The most prevalent ethical assessment is the utilitarian one: in medicine it is not ethical to carry out any intervention with a negative benefit risk balance. However, there are non-utilitarian moral criteria, based on principles or individual rights, and personal utilities that must also be considered in the decision-making processes. The ethical approach of overdiagnosis has to be carried out from an ethics of responsibility that contemplates principles and consequences assuming that the decisions of managers, clinicians and citizens will introduce different moral perspectives. The solutions go through training and research; have a reliable biomedical knowledge; avoid conflicts of interest, both business and organizational, and improve shared decision-making in the public, clinical and individual spheres.

Indexed as

Ethical TheoryEthics, MedicalMedical OveruseBioethical IssuesHumansCognitive biasesEthicsÉticaOverdiagnosisSesgos cognitivosSobrediagnóstico

Identifiers

PMID30563622
PMCPMC6837109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.